[wiggen]

What i find as amazing is why we on the right need to engage in the same kind of nonsense as the left.
I went to the site
http://www.usnews.com/whitehouse/visitors

He had about 100 visitors at the very same time so obviously some sort of ceremony. At the very least it should be mentioned.

I understand they could have met on their own but anyone bothering to do the legwork will see name after name after name at the same time.

[nathanbedford]

Good post.

Thank you might have saved me some embarrassment.

[Lakeshark]

Article claims it was a meeting, not just a visit.

Can you see the difference from your link? If you can, kindly get a screen shot of what you are seeing and show it to us.

Thanks.

[alancarp]

Well, at 11:18 on the morning of 3/31/2010, Obama was at Andrews AFB talking about 'Energy Security'. That afternoon, he signed something making it 'Cesar Chavez Day' (hence the ceremony - but that was with United Farm Workers leaders and Chavez' family members).

There was something called the 'Workplace Flexibility Forum' that is shown when you click on her entry for that date. At 1pm, the White House's Council of Economic Advisors issued something called 'The Economics of Workplace Flexibility' that undoubtedly involved union people - and probably was the over-arching reason for her visit on that day.

Yes - you're correct: we should do a better job than what The Left does in these matters. However, I don't believe in coincidence when it comes to this Administration, and while I'm doing this extra legwork to see if this American Spectator report sounds credible, you have to say that the timing is rather striking, to say the least.

[alancarp]

I'll throw in something else: see those WH visits on 12/1 and 12/3/2009? Please also note that Executive Order 13522 was issued on 12/9/2009 - a measure that gave federal employee unions much greater power within those agencies... and shielded all conversations had between union bosses (like Kelley) and the respective agencies.

There's more about this and the possible (likely?) connection to the IRS scandal at this site.

I don't even think now that this was quid-pro-quo... it's starting to look a lot more like a systematic plan.

[Colonel_Flagg]

If you sign in to the visitors’ log, do you not also sign out? Seems to me the proof in the pudding might be there. If there were 100 guests you’d think most of them would have left at the same time.

[livius]

Good observation, although it seems as if, while there was a ceremony, she wasn’t part of it but may have been part of some other small group there to get their federal employee union marching orders from the community organizer himself. Also, why her earlier WH meetings (with a couple of unknown people, although I think I’ve seen at least one of the names before in some other, not-good context)? In theory, she shouldn’t be important enough to merit WH meetings, and secondly, because her job involves federal unions, she shouldn’t even have WH meetings.

She’s the head of a very specific federal employee union, as well as being the head of an anti-Tea Party group in what turns out to be the agency that took the lead in targeting the Tea Party. These things did in fact take off as formal policy after her WH visits, so while you can’t say “post hoc propter hoc” (”after and thus because of”), you can certainly say “highly suspicious, needs further investigation.”